Stocks fell hard again Thursday, hitting new lows, but
unable to decisively break below key support levels of 10,100ish in
the Industrials and 1,080ish in the S&P 500. The retest of
these support levels looks to be wave
{5}down for the decline that
started January 19
th, which means Wednesday's low was likely wave
{3}'s bottom.Markets are volatile
and continue to press lower, which means Bears need to remain
nimble at the coming corrective wave
2bounce, which may have
started at Thursday's intraday lows. It means in a major
catastrophic declining wave, in our case supercycle degree wave
(C )down, bounces can
disappoint.
Thanks for the update, Peridot. It seems that he is extending
his wave {3} into yesterday. If so, a retest of today's lows should
come tomorrow, as he had projected earlier. FWIW.
or today was the 5th wave low, we'll see. Sometimes Mchugh
is right on and sometimes he's way off. The short term counts
can change are are difficult to say for sure. If we go down
again, there's a
gap around 1070,
so my target would be anywhere from 1070 - 1075
watch the 144 stochastics on the 15 min SPX chart, it appears to
be a good guide.
Also so does the 60 period stochastics on a 60 min SPX, they are
basically doing the same thing.
Matt, let me ask a few questions for educational purposes. A
retest of the broken triangle -- formed in wave 4 -- at the open
today was wave 2 of 5, wasn't it? Then a steep decline to a new low
was wave 3 of 5, and a high low was wave 5 of 5, wasn't it? If so,
this count is incomplete or inconsistent. What other labeling could
you suggest?
Also, how does wave 5 normally look in terms of patterns?
I am more comfortable identifying the patterns and then
reconstructing the wave structure, as wave 2, 3 and 4 look very
distinct from each other. Kind thanks to you for responding!
An excerpt from McHugh
Posted by Peridot on 28th of Jan 2010 at 02:49 pm
Stocks fell hard again Thursday, hitting new lows, but unable to decisively break below key support levels of 10,100ish in the Industrials and 1,080ish in the S&P 500. The retest of these support levels looks to be wave {5}down for the decline that started January 19 th, which means Wednesday's low was likely wave {3}'s bottom.Markets are volatile and continue to press lower, which means Bears need to remain nimble at the coming corrective wave 2bounce, which may have started at Thursday's intraday lows. It means in a major catastrophic declining wave, in our case supercycle degree wave (C )down, bounces can disappoint.
this bounce may not disaapoint.
Posted by macnsc on 28th of Jan 2010 at 03:11 pm
The upside, at least in the short term, is that speculation will drive the stock market for the next several months, he believes...
it really would gain momo
Posted by dylan398 on 28th of Jan 2010 at 03:15 pm
it really would gain momo IMO if Bernanke vote would be during trading hours...
Thanks for the update, Peridot.
Posted by junkie on 28th of Jan 2010 at 03:08 pm
Thanks for the update, Peridot. It seems that he is extending his wave {3} into yesterday. If so, a retest of today's lows should come tomorrow, as he had projected earlier. FWIW.
or today was the 5th
Posted by matt on 28th of Jan 2010 at 03:16 pm
or today was the 5th wave low, we'll see. Sometimes Mchugh is right on and sometimes he's way off. The short term counts can change are are difficult to say for sure. If we go down again, there's a gap around 1070, so my target would be anywhere from 1070 - 1075
watch the 144 stochastics on the 15 min SPX chart, it appears to be a good guide.
Also so does the 60 period stochastics on a 60 min SPX, they are basically doing the same thing.
Matt, let me ask a
Posted by junkie on 28th of Jan 2010 at 03:32 pm
Matt, let me ask a few questions for educational purposes. A retest of the broken triangle -- formed in wave 4 -- at the open today was wave 2 of 5, wasn't it? Then a steep decline to a new low was wave 3 of 5, and a high low was wave 5 of 5, wasn't it? If so, this count is incomplete or inconsistent. What other labeling could you suggest?
Also, how does wave 5 normally look in terms of patterns?
I am more comfortable identifying the patterns and then reconstructing the wave structure, as wave 2, 3 and 4 look very distinct from each other. Kind thanks to you for responding!
"bounces can disappoint"
Posted by perthx on 28th of Jan 2010 at 02:56 pm
Didn't I post that this morning? LOL...I should write this stuff.